Royal Succession: Commonwealth Leaders Change Laws Governing Royal Line (Pictures)

The Huffington Post UK   First Posted: 28/10/11 10:53 Updated: 28/10/11 22:23

Leaders of the 16 nations of the Commonwealth have changed legislation governing the line of succession to rescind a law that favours boys over girls in the royal line.

Prime Minister David Cameron made the announcement alongside Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard at Perth, Western Australia, on Friday.

The 16 “realms” also agreed to remove the ban on a spouse of a Roman Catholic taking the throne.

Since the 1701 Settlement Act, sons of the monarch have taken precedence over daughters.

David Cameron is expected to introduce legislation in the UK to ensure equality within the succession for any offspring of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

Speaking ahead of the Commonwealth summit Australia, Cameron said the laws were "outdated".

Following the amendment, Royal succession will be determined by order of birth.

Other laws will also be amended, including the barring of anyone that marries a Roman Catholic from succeeding the crown.

Catholics are still banned from the throne, but a future monarch can now marry a Catholic and remain head of the Church of England.

Future royalty will no longer need the monarch's consent to marry.

In his address, Cameron told Commonwealth leaders: "The idea that a younger son should become monarch instead of an elder daughter, simply because he is a man, just is not acceptable any more.

"Nor does it make any sense that a potential monarch can marry someone of any faith other than Catholic.

"The thinking behind these rules is wrong. That's why people have been talking about changing them for some time. We need to get on and do it."

However, campaign group Republic has criticised the amendments to the Act of Succession, branding the changes "crass and absurd".

Republic's Campaign Manager, Graham Smith, said:

"These proposals change nothing of substance, even if William and Kate have a daughter. All this fuss is about a trivial detail of a succession that may or may not happen in 70 years time."

"The monarchy discriminates against every man, woman and child who isn't born into the Windsor family. To suggest that this has anything to do with equality is utterly absurd. It fails the equality test both in practice and in principle."

"In practice it simply means that the eldest child of one family is preferred over all others. Inequality is therefore further entrenched in the system."

"In principle all children in Britain should have an equal opportunity to stand for the position of Head of State. Anything short of that is an affront to the principles of equality."

Smith added that the monarchy is founded on discrimination and elitism. "It has no place in a debate over equality of opportunity," he said.

At the press conference, Cameron also mentioned the ongoing Occupy protest outside St Paul's Cathedral, saying he was “very concerned” that the building was still not open to the public because of the continuing protest. He also called for the matter to be resolved.

The Queen is also in Perth ahead of the summit.

The changes were made hours after the Duchess of Cambridge attended her first solo engagement as a Royal at a private diner for the charity Kind Direct. Prince Charles was due to attend but had to pull out due to a rearranged flight to Saudi Arabia.

RATE IT!   |  
VOTE
CURRENT TOP 5 PICK YOUR OWN TOP 5
USERS WHO VOTED
NEW! CREATE YOUR OWN SLIDESHOW
FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK

Leaders of the 16 nations of the Commonwealth have changed legislation governing the line of succession to rescind a law that favours boys over girls in the royal line. Prime Minister David Cameron...
Leaders of the 16 nations of the Commonwealth have changed legislation governing the line of succession to rescind a law that favours boys over girls in the royal line. Prime Minister David Cameron...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 236
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
23:39 on 29/10/2011
About time
20:01 on 29/10/2011
Hmm.....It's 2011 and you are finallly getting over the "Catholic" thing.

How progressive
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WillieBlack
22:06 on 29/10/2011
Hmm.....It­'s 2011 and there's no sign of you getting over the "Muslim" thing.

How progressive.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
agness nutter
What fresh hell is this?
06:54 on 30/10/2011
Hmmm - It's 2011, the Tea Party is effectively ruling your country and no candidate who didn't declare him or herself to be a full-blown Christian could ever get on the ballot.
23:03 on 31/10/2011
I reside in the States; my home is Ireland
15:50 on 29/10/2011
Its amazing that in the 21st century, an institution is being congratulated for the fact that it no longer discriminates against the sex of a person. Now if we could only vote for our Head of State, instead of it going to an individual based solely on the fact that they are born into a certain (wealthy and white) family, we could really be a democratic, diverse and meritocratic nation that we constantly reiterate to others.

Also, this isn't "equality for women"; this change shall affect only a privileged handful, who are lucky enough to be born with 'royal' blood, not the 30m or so women in the UK itself, who actually/really matter.
photo
visconti24
See everything; overlook much; correct a little.
18:02 on 29/10/2011
What exactly is your point? Yes, being born into one family gives you advantages or disadvantages over other people. I have inherited stuff because I am a member of a specific family: land, businesses, stock. And I am not sharing a single thing with you. Furthermore, because, and only because I am the oldest child of my parents, and I am a male, I have inherited roughly twice as much as all my other 9 siblings combined. And when I die, my only child, a son, will inherit all that I have and then, all that his mother has.
What "meritocracy" are you talking about? Do you believe in the little fable that rich people are all "self-made?" 80% of significant fortunes in the US are achieved the old fashioned way: they are inherited.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
22:59 on 29/10/2011
"...Now if we could only vote for our Head of State,..."

You mean, like, in some kind of 'X-factor' show?

Or do you mean we get to chose whoever the political parties allow us to?

On that basis, the current system seems just as good.
This comment has been removed.
23:55 on 28/10/2011
This was the last problem the world had. Now we don't even have that anymore.
This comment has been removed.
23:38 on 06/11/2011
Love it!
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cqdeed
Filling the mind with facts...or trivia?
21:47 on 28/10/2011
This makes me wonder about the present line of succession in England. If Prince Charles were to die would Prince William still be next in line for the throne or would Prince Charles' sister (I forget her name) be first in line followed by her children?
22:12 on 28/10/2011
Good question. I think it still goes from heir to their heirs before their siblings, though.
23:04 on 28/10/2011
The change is not retroactive. It applies to succession after Prince Charles and since his first born was a male the change will potentially impact William and Kate's first born. If their first born child is a female she will assume the thrown as Queen regardless of any future male children.
06:29 on 29/10/2011
To the best of my knowledge, nothing would change and Prince William would simply move up and take his father's place as first in line of succession.

Charles's sister is well out of the picture, as William, Harry, Prince Andrew, Prince Edward, and the children of Andrew and Edward are all in line to inherit the throne ahead of Princess Anne.

All of Queen Elizabeth's male offspring, and all their offspring (male or female) are ahead of Princess Anne.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_line_of_succession
21:41 on 28/10/2011
Wow, someone reads our comments! The "Duke and Duchess of Kent" has been corrected to read "Duke and Duchess of Cambridge." wtg and send my fee via Paypal.
21:29 on 28/10/2011
I can safely say the Royals are in the 1%
This comment has been removed.
21:11 on 28/10/2011
"David Cameron is expected to introduce legislation in the UK to ensure equality within the succession for any offspring of the Duke and Duchess of Kent." Did I miss something? Or is someone else being paid to write Kent when they mean Cambridge?
21:25 on 28/10/2011
You can drive across the entire nation in a day does it really matter?
21:32 on 28/10/2011
lol. Not geographically;) But, as the Kents are not the Cambridges....seems pretty simple to get right.

;-)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Matthew Harrold
Huzzah!
01:44 on 29/10/2011
So the size of the nation automatically dictates how geographically correct you have to be? Man, no wonder Americans have such issues with geography outside of their borders.
photo
lindamom
never fry chicken in the nude
22:38 on 28/10/2011
Good catch jel...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
jacmed
71, female - whatever happened to common sense?
21:05 on 28/10/2011
It's about damned time! Should have been done decades ago.
20:47 on 28/10/2011
With all that divine right stuff you think they would check that crap out with God first.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
21:12 on 28/10/2011
What would all that "divine right stuff " be, then?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WillieBlack
23:52 on 28/10/2011
Better ask him which movie he means.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.